The proposed wording would be in line with the act's interpretation principles, under the title “Language rights”.
I would like to remind you that the bill proposes the following three principles of interpretation:
(a) language rights are to be given a large, liberal and purposive interpretation; (b) language rights are to be interpreted in light of their remedial character; and (c) the norm for the interpretation of language rights is substantive equality.
These three interpretation principles are based on case law established by the Supreme Court. They are facts; they already exist in jurisprudence.
In this case, we are not talking about the same thing. The addition proposed in the amendment departs from the case law established by the Supreme Court. Moreover, it repeats language that is already found elsewhere in the bill.